What
follows is an address, delivered in my absence by Tom Moor, at the Committees
of Safety rally held at Lexington Green on 19 April 2009. I have also
appended an afterword.

THE
ADDRESS

Ladies
and gentlemen:

Lexington
Green does not merely recall an historic event. More importantly, it
also teaches a profound lesson in the philosophy and practice of popular
self-government.

Observe
the statue standing there at the head of the green. And recall the statue
at the North Bridge in Concord. Each of them depicts but a single individual.
Yet, in each case, that one individual represents many more than himself
alone: A single Minuteman, representing all of the Minutemen.

Even
more importantly, the Minutemen were no happenstance bunch of individuals
some of whom accidentally gravitated to Lexington Green and the North
Bridge on the 19th of April in 1775. They were no mere crowd of farmers,
artisans, and tradesmen who stumbled together with no coherence, no
general self-consciousness, no collective purpose or resolve.

To
the contrary: They were members of an organization which included
all free adult able-bodied men throughout Massachusetts, with like organizations
in each of the other twelve American Colonies. An organization which
had existed in Massachusetts herself for almost 150 years. An organization
with legal—indeed, governmental—authority: The
Militia of Massachusetts.

And
they assembled here, not to break the law, but to witness to it, to
defend it, and if possible to enforce it against British troops who
were, they rightly believed, breaking the laws of Massachusetts, abridging
the Colonists’ rights as Englishmen, and flouting what the Declaration
of Independence later called “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s
God”.

Here
at Lexington, the Militiamen did not at first intend to fight—they
meant only to demonstrate their disapproval of the incursion into their
town by General Gage’s troops, to embody in their own persons
on this green their legal authority, and to present a living remonstrance
through a muster of physical—but even more importantly, of legal
and moral—strength, rather than an act of outright forcible resistance.

As
Pastor Jonas Clark wrote in The Battle of Lexington: An Eyewitness
Narrative of That Day, the Militia of Lexington

was
alarmed and ordered to meet on the usual place of parade; not with any
design of commencing hostilities upon the king’s troops, but to
consult what might be done for our own and the people’s safety:
And also to be ready for whatever service providence might call us out
to upon this alarming occasion, in case overt acts of violence or open
hostilities should be committed

by
the British. So, recalled Reverend Parker,

alarm
guns were fired and the drums beat to arms; and the militia was
collecting together. Some, to the number of about 50 or 60, or possibly
more, were on the parade, others were coming toward it. In the meantime,
the [British] troops, having * * * stolen a march upon us * * * , seemed
to come determined for MURDER and BLOODSHED; and that whether
provoked to it, or not! When within about half a quarter of a mile of
the meetinghouse, they halted and the command was given to prime
and load; which, being done, they marched on ’till they
came * * * in sight of our militia * * * . Immediately upon
their appearing so suddenly and so nigh, Capt. [John] Parker,
who commanded the militia company, ordered the men to disperse
and take care of themselves, and not to fire. Upon this, our
men dispersed; but many of them, not so speedily as they might have
done, not having the most distant idea of such brutal barbarity
and more than savage CRUELTY from the troops of a British
KING as they immediately experienced! For no sooner did they come
in sight of our company, but one of them, supposed to be an officer
of rank, was heard to say to the troops, “Damn them; we will
have them!” Upon which the troops shouted aloud, huzza’d,
and rushed furiously towards our men. About the same time, three officers
* * * advanced on horseback to the front of the body and * * * one of
them cried out, “Ye villains, ye Rebels, disperse; damn you,
disperse!” or words to that effect. One of them * * * said
“Lay down your arms; damn you, why don’t you lay down
your arms!” The second of these officers about this time
fired a pistol towards the militia as it was dispersing. The
foremost, who was in a few yards of our men, brandishing his sword and
then pointing it towards them, with a loud voice said to the troops,
“Fire! By God, fire!” which was instantly followed
by a discharge of arms from the said troops, succeeded by a very heavy
and close fire upon our party, dispersing, so long as any of them were
within reach. Eight were left dead upon the ground! Ten were wounded.
The rest of the company, through divine goodness, were (to a miracle)
preserved unhurt in this murderous action!

We
learn from this account that, pursuant to orders, Lexington’s
Militiamen were in fact dispersing when the British opened
fire on them. Dispersing, but not laying down their arms.
They knew that, by themselves alone, they could not effectively resist
the overwhelming force the British had amassed against them in the field.
Nevertheless, they refused to surrender their legal and moral authority.
And later, they—along with Militiamen from Concord and other towns
throughout the surrounding area—combined that authority with sufficient
force, and drove the British back into Boston.

This
is a stirring story. But what does it offer to us today? Is what happened
here in Lexington on the 19th of April in 1775 merely an historical
incident with no contemporary value other than as an excuse for a spring
holiday? To imagine as much is to forget the admonition that those who
refuse to learn from history will find themselves repeating history—and
generally the hard way.

All
too many Americans have become all too much forgetful of the real meaning
of the 19th of April, 1775. Today, except for a few ceremonial vestiges
here and there, the true Militia of Massachusetts, as well
as the true Militia of all the other States, are almost entirely disbanded.

Disbanded
in fact, but not under “the supreme Law of the Land”.
For—

The Constitution
of the United States still declares that “[a] well regulated
Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”.
Indeed, “[a] well regulated Militia” is the one and
only institution that the Constitution recognizes as “necessary”
for any purpose.

The Constitution
still incorporates “the Militia of the several States”—according
to the principles under which they existed in 1788—into its
federal structure.

The Constitution
still delegates to Congress, and in default of Congress to the States,
and in default of Congress and the States to WE THE PEOPLE themselves,
the power and the duty to organize, arm, discipline, and
train the Militia.

Yet, notwithstanding
the Constitution, nowhere in America are “the Militia of the
several States”, or of any State, organized in the manner and
to the degree “the supreme Law of the Land” expressly,
unequivocally, and emphatically commands.

This
is not because our country faces no grave dangers against which the
Militia are the first, and the best, and perhaps in the final analysis
the only means to provide true “homeland security”. To the
contrary: Today, more than ever before in America’s existence,
“well regulated Militia” are urgently “necessary to
the security of a free State”, everywhere throughout the United
States.

“[T]he
Militia of the several States” are effectively disbanded, and
the Constitution flouted, and America’s “homeland security”
imperilled, because WE THE PEOPLE are not doing their part.
WE THE PEOPLE are not standing forth today, as the Minutemen of Lexington
stood forth in 1775, in defense of their country against all enemies,
foreign and domestic. Unlike the Minutemen of Lexington, who mustered
on this green, muskets in hand, to perform their possibly fatal duties
as Militiamen in the face of armed oppressors, all too many contemporary
Americans refuse to acknowledge, let alone to fulfill, even their simplest
and safest responsibilities as self-governing citizens of “a free
State”.

“[A]
free State” is a state in which the people actually govern themselves.
“A well regulated Militia” is composed of every able-bodied
resident of the State from sixteen to sixty years of age. The Militia
consists of the people; and the people control the Militia. So, of course
“[a] well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the
security of a free State”. It could not possibly be otherwise.

Advertisement

More
than that: Because “a free State” is one in which the people
govern themselves—and because “[a] well regulated Militia”
is “necessary to the security of a free State”—therefore,
without “[a] well regulated Militia”, popular
self-government cannot long endure. Let me repeat that, so there
can be no mistake: Without “[a] well regulated Militia”,
popular self-government cannot long endure. This is what
the Constitution declares. This is what History teaches. This is what
current events are proving. This is what all Americans will soon learn,
to their everlasting sorrow, if they fail to follow in the footsteps
of the men from Lexington.

Here
today, an enthusiastic throng of patriots has gathered. Yet it is only
a congregation, not an organization. Its participants sense their potential
political power to bring about fundamental, and desperately needed,
reforms in this country. For strength lies in numbers; and tens of millions
of Americans share their sentiments. But potential is not actual power.
And actual political power this great mass of Americans cannot yet exercise,
because its members lack, not simply the means, but more importantly
the legal authority, to do so.

That
legal authority can—and must—be regained, by revitalizing
in every one of “the several States” the institutions that
the monument on Lexington Green recalls, rightly glorifies, and recommends
to us today. Not just the solitary man with his musket, but
the hundreds and thousands, even millions, of men and women
who should muster in “the Militia of the several States”.

With
their muskets? Surely so, because being armed is the hallmark of
free citizens and of a proper constitutional Militia. But armed not
with muskets alone, or even primarily. Because today the most important
work of political and economic reform in American can be undertaken
without muskets:

There must be
fundamental monetary and banking reform before a total collapse of
the Federal Reserve System plunges this country into economic, political,
and social chaos.

There must be
adequate preparations for dealing with natural disasters, epidemics,
and other like catastrophes.

There
must be provision of food and medical security for all Americans.

And
the list goes on.

Surely,
men and women who know and are determined to assert their rights will
prove capable of performing these tasks, even without muskets in their
hands. If they are properly organized. So
now, just as did the Minutemen on Lexington Green, patriots “must
consult what might be done for our own and the people’s safety”
and make themselves “ready for whatever service providence might
call us out to”—in and through the organizations
that the Constitution declares to be “necessary to the security
of a free State”: “the Militia of the several
States”.

How
is this to be accomplished? In the selfsame manner in which all fundamental
political reform must be brought about in “a free State”.
WE THE PEOPLE, by themselves and for themselves, must employ
democratic self-government to save, strengthen, and extend democratic
self-government by revitalizing what the Constitution itself declares
to be “necessary” to preserve democratic self-government:
“the Militia of the several States”. The proper
path is through each of the States’ legislatures, one by one.
The good people in each State must enact statutes that will revitalize
their Militia along strict constitutional lines and for constitutional
purposes. Immediately, if not sooner.

In
this effort, proponents of revitalizing the Militia should seek and
welcome support from members and veterans of the regular Armed Forces,
and of State and Local police, sheriffs’ departments, and emergency-services
agencies. One need simply read the Constitution to realize that the
Militia’s responsibilities—“to execute the Laws of
the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”—overlap
the duties of the Armed Forces and embrace those of State and Local
police, sheriffs’ departments, and kindred agencies. Therefore,
when the Militia are revitalized, they will complement the regular Armed
Forces, and supplement the police and emergency-services personnel.
The Militia, the Armed Forces, the police, and so on will be the closest
of allies, never competitors, let alone antagonists—because
they will all share the very same goal: the preservation of popular
self-government against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The
enemies of “a free State” know this. Which is why they belittle
the movement for revitalization of the Militia with the contention that
“revitalization of the Militia is useless, because the Militia
cannot effectively fight the Armed Forces”. This is black propaganda
broadcast in order to sow dissension, to create distrust, and to engender
defeatism. And it is obviously wrongheaded, because it rests on the
demonstrably false assumption of an inherent conflict between the Militia
and the Armed Forces.

Precisely
where does the Constitution say that the Militia and the regular
Armed Forces must, or will, or should, or even might fight, one against
another? Are not the Militia and the Armed Forces components of the
very same constitutional plan? Are not they equally dedicated to securing
the same “common defence” and “general Welfare”
that the Constitution’s Preamble promises to all Americans?

Perhaps
the dark day will dawn when aspiring usurpers and tyrants will attempt
to seize power in the United States. But one cannot assume that, on
that day, the Armed Forces, in whole or in a major part, will consist
of traitors who will aid and abet such a conspiracy by taking up arms
against their own people. Perhaps, too, a few rogue elements in the
Armed Forces might provide those usurpers with some aid and comfort.
After all, every barrel contains a few bad apples. But, even then, would
not the better part of the Armed Forces and the Militia concert their
efforts in order to restore and preserve constitutional government?
Why should Americans expect any other outcome?

We
are reminded here today that the members of the Armed Forces, sheriffs,
the police, and other public-service personnel take an oath to support
the Constitution. What, though, must be the consequence of this oath?
The Constitution recognizes and empowers “the Militia of the several
States” as fundamentally important parts of its federal system.
In fact, the Constitution devotes more words to setting out
Congress’s and the States’ powers with respect to the Militia
than it does to setting out Congress’s powers with respect to
the Army and the Navy. And the Constitution appoints the President of
the United States as Commander in Chief of both “the
Army and Navy of the United States, and * * * the Militia of the several
States”. Thus, constitutionally, “the Militia of
the several States” are at least as important as the regular Armed
Forces. For that reason, when the members of the Armed Forces take
an oath to support the Constitution—all of the
Constitution, without any exception—they take
an oath to support “the Militia of the several States” as
component parts of the Constitution, too. Today, however, “the
Militia of the several States” are not properly organized anywhere
within the United States. So the oath that members of the Armed Forces
take to support the Constitution as it should be enforced in its
entirety must translate into an oath to support revitalization of the
Militia, so that the entirety of the Constitution can
be enforced. One cannot take an oath to support the Constitution
as a whole while at the same time acquiescing in the neglect, failure,
or intentional refusal of public officials to put into operation the
very institutions that the Constitution itself declares are “necessary
to the security of a free State”.

The
enemies of “a free State” also seek to demoralize patriots
by claiming that the restoration of constitutional government throughout
the United States is impossible. But it is precisely the revitalization
of “the Militia of the several States” that will make such
restoration, not only possible, but also relatively easy. We know that
it will be possible, because the Constitution itself assures us that
“well regulated Militia” are “necessary to the security
of a free State”—and, if “necessary”, then surely
they will be sufficient for that purpose. We can further rest assured
that restoration of constitutional government through revitalization
of the Militia will be practicable, because “the Laws of Nature
and of Nature’s God” favor the big battalions—and
the good people of America outnumber the enemies of “a free State”
by orders of magnitude. Not only that. Once organized in “the
Militia of the several States”, Americans will have unquestionable
right—in the form of constitutional authority—as
well as overwhelming might on their side.

The
“embattled farmers” of Lexington choose to meet the British
troops on this green because this was the farmers’ own ground
that the British were invading and violating. The Minutemen were in
rightful possession. And possession, the old saw has it, amounts to
nine-tenths of the law. The other one-tenth is enforcement
of that possession. Who, though, are better able to enforce, and have
the greater incentive to enforce, possession than the people in actual
possession—in decisive numbers, with right on their side, and
thoroughly organized to convert numbers and right into
might?

In
sum, the lesson that History sets before us today in bronze, and stone,
and greensward is plain enough for anyone to learn, and compelling enough
for every patriot, not only to take to heart, but also to put into action.
Americans will rest secure in their constitutional freedoms only
when they themselves secure those freedoms through the “necessary”
constitutional means: namely, “the Militia of the several States”.
Nothing less has sufficed in the past; nothing less will do today.

Advertisement

The
Militiaman standing at the head of the green reminds us that self-government
is not a “spectator sport”. It is a “team effort”.
And it is not just a game, either. It is a free people’s vocation—sometimes
even a sacrificial vocation. So, with that insight and that inspiration,
when we leave this green today let us bear with us a new resolution,
and a new understanding of how, to make constitutional self-government
a reality throughout America.

AN
AFTERWORD

Why
was this address necessary and proper? Not simply once again to eulogize
the Embattled Farmers of 1775—although they deserve unstinting
praise on every April 19th. But also, especially, to admonish living
Americans—so few of whom either sew or reap in the garden of patriotism
that our country can expect to enjoy no harvest of freedom and prosperity,
either today or in the foreseeable future.

The
Forces of Darkness are intent upon separating America’s regular
Armed Forces and professional police departments, sheriffs, and other
law-enforcement agencies from her people as a whole. This is hardly
surprising, as such a separation is the necessary condition precedent
to, if not the very essence of, a para-militarized police state. The
evil strategy is simple enough:

First,
infect the Armed Forces and police with contempt for patriotism, for
constitutionalism, and particularly for any exposure of, dissent from,
protest against, and action to counter the oppression and looting of
society by the shadow government of factions and special-interest groups
that dominate the Disgrace of Columbia.

Second,
engender fear among the Armed Forces and police by demonizing all opposition
to the shadow government as emanating from ignorant, racist, and violent
“militia” groups. If someone correctly points out that the
Second Amendment declares “[a] well regulated Militia * * * necessary
to the security of a free State”, so much the better—for
if a “militia” can be portrayed as the domain of armed crackpots,
then “a free State” led by “militia”-types must
be even worse!

Third,
align the Armed Forces and the police with the shadow government as
its agents in systematic, ever-expanding oppression of the people. If
the people remonstrate against well-orchestrated threats of “martial
law” and unpunished incidents of “police brutality”,
they thereby prove themselves enemies of the Armed Forces and the police,
closing the logical loop in the Dark Forces’ self-fulfilling prophecy.
In the Dark Forces’ estimation, nine-tenths of both the Armed
Forces and police, on the one hand, and the people, on the other, will
likely prove too dense or too brainwashed to realize that the two groups
should be allies, not antagonists, and that they should join forces
against their mutual enemies, the Forces of Darkness, rather than savage
one another.

Fourth,
if the people openly and strenuously resist oppression, then turn the
most radicalized rogue elements of Armed Forces and police loose against
them—and let the two groups, that should be acting in unison to
defend their country, fight amongst themselves in free-fire zones to
the bitter end, with the destruction of America the only possible outcome,
and the self-selected elitists in the shadow government the only possible
winners of the contest.

So,
some of the questions members of the Armed Forces, police, sheriffs,
and other law-enforcement and emergency-response personnel should be
asking themselves right now are:

Who
is actually causing economic collapse, social turmoil, and political
unrest in this country—and in whose interest?
What will happen to this country unless fundamental changes are forthcoming,
and soon—particularly, changes in political leadership at every
level; and in the economic system, especially with regard to money and
banking.
Which public officials have betrayed their oaths of office, and how?
(Or, perhaps easier to list, which public officials have consistently
been true to their oaths of office?)
Who is trying to subvert the Armed Forces and police so as to transmogrify
them into agents of oppression along the lines of the Gestapo and NKVD?
Who is threatening to declare “martial law”, and to what
end?

Perhaps
the question of immediate importance is: “How is “martial
law” even possible under the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution?”

Personally,
I am—and I should hope every thinking American is—thoroughly
sick and tired of hearing the purveyors of gloom and doom warning this
country, over and over in the dire tones of a dirge of despair, that
“martial law” will soon be imposed, and the Constitution
“set aside”. Are all of these people legal ignoramuses?
Or perhaps are some of them agents of influence and agents provocateurs
acting on behalf of the Forces of Darkness, to condition Americans to
accept defeat before they have even begun to fight?

The
answer to the question “How is nationwide ‘martial law’
possible under the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?”
is: NOT AT ALL! And the answer to the further question “Will ‘martial
law’ be imposed across America?” is: NOT ON YOUR LIFE, OR
IN YOUR LIFETIME, IF YOU VALUE YOUR LIFE!

All
Americans should recall—and, these days, perhaps train themselves
to recite by heart—what the Founding Fathers learned from their
legal mentor, Sir William Blackstone, about “martial law”:

[M]artial
law, which is built upon no settled principles, but is entirely arbitrary
in it’s decisions is * * * in truth and reality no law, but something
indulged, rather than allowed as a law: the necessity of order and discipline
in an army is the only thing which can give it countenance; and therefore
it ought not to be permitted in time of peace, when the * * * courts
are open for all persons to receive justice according to the laws of
the land. * * * And the petition of right enacts * * * that no commission
shall issue to proceed within this land according to martial law.

Can
any rational individual imagine that, knowing what “martial law”
was, America’s Founders—let alone the Embattled Farmers
who responded under arms to the alarm at Lexington and Concord in 1775—believed
that it was, or even could be, among the “just powers” that
“Governments * * * deriv[ed] * * * from the consent of the governed”
for the purpose of securing men’s “unalienable Rights”?

Can
any rational individual imagine that, knowing what “martial law”
was, and having just won a long and bloody War of Independence that
started with British General Thomas Gage’s military take-over
of Boston, America’s Founders included within the Constitution
an arcane power to impose “martial law” throughout the country?
(For no hint of such a power appears in so many words.) And this, when
even in England—from subjection to which they had just freed themselves—“no
commission shall issue to proceed within this land according to martial
law”?!

And
can any rational individual imagine that, knowing what “martial
law” was, the Framers of the Bill of Rights could have conceived
of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, “well
regulated Militia”, and “the security of a free State”
all being subordinated to “martial law” on the whim of some
President (or, more realistically, the sly courtiers who have his ear
and pull his strings)—and We the People left with no recourse
but to knuckle under or be ground under by some Praetorian Guard?

Are
not the Declaration of Independence—which explicitly rests upon
“the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, and the
Constitution—which explicitly sets out the powers and disabilities
of government, total and uncompromising rejections of the notion of
“law” “built upon no settled principles” or
“law” “entirely arbitrary in it’s decisions”?

But
these are rhetorical questions, the answers to which are self-evident.
Under America’s Declaration of Independence and Constitution,
“martial law” is and can only be “martial lawlessness”.
It is the antithesis, the antagonist, the assassin of law.

A
crime, true enough—but in whose interest? For, as Franklin D.
Roosevelt is reputed to have observed (and he would certainly have known):
“Nothing happens in politics by accident. If it happens, you can
be sure it was planned that way.” “Martial law” is
the Dark Forces’ euphemism for their plan to extinguish the rule
of all true law. If their revolution can be accomplished without
main force—through instilling apathy, fear, resignation, and despair
in the people—so much the better. But, if not, then force will
be applied, because they expect that the people will exert no significant
counterforce. If they thought otherwise, they would be deterred.
Because they are few, We the People many. To the extent that We the
People assert their constitutional authority, and the power that derives
from it, the Dark Forces become powerless.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

This
is why revitalization of “the Militia of the several States”—immediately,
if not sooner—is so crucial. And why every member of the Armed
Forces, policeman, sheriff, and emergency-services worker—everyone
who traces whatever authority he claims to exercise back to his oath
of office to support and defend the Constitution—needs to rally
behind that effort. For what good is an oath to support and defend a
“supreme Law” that is not enforced? And what legitimacy
does a uniform or a badge confer, when they represent only a “supreme
Law” that even their wearers flout?

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four
degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has
practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme
Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases
leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education,
Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America
v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on
the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors,
may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their
employment.

He has written numerous monographs
and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county.
His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces
of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States
Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American
monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us

He is also the co-author (under
a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER:
A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash
of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com

More than that: Because
“a free State” is one in which the people govern themselves—and
because “[a] well regulated Militia” is “necessary to
the security of a free State”—therefore, without “[a]
well regulated Militia”, popular self-government cannot long endure.